Three Vague Words on Pottery Prove the Bible True

January 9, 2009 by Traveling Matt

Imagine, for a moment, you are a skilled archaeologist, having devoted years of your life to the uncovering, cataloguing, and assimilation of physical artifacts. You are on an expedition in Sweden, doing research into Scandinavian artifacts in the hopes of illuminating the lives and history of Vikings. One of the artifacts, one of many you publicly announce to little fanfare, is a shard of pottery. Only three words of the old language are clearly legible: “slave,” “king,” and “judge.”

Those three words, common in Viking stories and legends of the day, say nothing about what or whom they refer to, and could be anything from a child’s reader to an epic poem. A minority of modern Scandinavians still believe in the Viking gods, and they proudly insist that it refers to Odin—who in Norse mythology (oops, I mean in their truth) is the “king” of the gods, the head of the twelve “judges,” and to whom male “slaves” were sacrificed during blót festivals. What more proof could any rational person need? Odin is said to have visited Uppsala, Sweden in person—the king of the gods walking on earth—and those three words on the pottery prove it!

The next day, all of Sweden is abuzz with wonder. The neo-Vikings rattle loudly in the media that their ancient beliefs have been shown true. A week later, their exaltation spreads to the world’s newspapers, which pick up the story and spread it uncritically and with arresting headlines. “The God Odin is Proven Real,” the stories read, “By Startling New Archaelogical Find.” You are now a hero to neo-Vikings everywhere: you have just proven Odin.

Sound implausible? Read on.

I don’t remember being taught to read news stories critically. Were you? It’s not taught in schools except by rebelliously brilliant teachers, and even if were it’s a heavily discouraged skill in America. In the face of such odds I had to learn to do it myself. The Odin story ought to make it clear how important this skill is, and how obvious the critical faculty comes to you when it’s a subject you’re not blind about. But what happens when it’s your religion?

Read the article if you like. If you’re too busy, here are some juicy excerpts:

Astounding new evidence has been unearthed in Israel that could confirm the biblical story of King David.

Until now, almost nothing has been found that would prove the biblical account of a shepherd boy from the 10th century BC who slew the giant Goliath and went on to become the King of Israel who founded Jerusalem.

But today Hebrew University archaeology professor Yosef Garfinkel announced the discovery of a tiny, but potentially invaluable, piece of pottery at the site of the ruins of an ancient fortified city south-west of Jerusalem dated to the time of King David.

Scholars are still trying to decipher the full text of the inscription, but Garfinkel said they are excited at the prospect of a link to David because they have already translated the words for “king,” “judge,” and “slave”, which he said suggested it was some sort of official note from the time of his reign.

Allow me to summarize.

“Almost nothing” has ever been found to corroborate the Biblical account of King David.

Only three words have been translated on the inscription. They are extremely common words.

No mention is made of David, and nothing about the artifact says anything about him, or whether he even exists.

Even if the above three points were not true, even if David were somehow mentioned or reasonably indicated, nothing is said about the Goliath legend.

Therefore, the newspaper editors concluded, it made sense to entitle the article “‘Proof’ David slew Goliath found as Israeli archaeologists unearth ‘oldest ever Hebrew text.'”

This is why I think the media is stupid.

It’s also an example of how religion makes people abandon even the most elementary standards of common sense.

If you think the latter bit is an exaggeration, by the way, and that religious literalists aren’t so ign’ant as to shoehorn such a flimsy fact into a declaration of Biblical “proof,” then check out what happened the last time a vague piece of pottery turned up, in 1993:

And so on. I understand the need for meaning in our lives. My own pursuit of it, where successful, has been as a result of removing the blind spots that separate me from what’s true about the world. Attaching to vague or demonstrably false assertions because they make you feel a sense of meaning does not make your life more meaningful. I’ve found the greatest meaning in creativity, generosity, friends, and family. I don’t have to make stuff up about pottery, or about old books poorly transcribed from the oral legends of illiterate superstitious desert dwellers.

For the record, so as not to offend any beautiful bikini-wearing Swedes, Sweden is one of the most atheistic countries in the world. They are also the second-happiest.

You know what’s ironic about the Odin analogy I started out with? If there were such a thing as a neo-Viking—and, let’s be honest, there probably is—they would probably find the “Proof David Slew Goliath” pronouncements ludicrous.

10 Responses to "Three Vague Words on Pottery Prove the Bible True"

By Angela January 11, 2009 - 3:44 pm

Yep, a person can create “proof” of whatever they want to be true out of just about anything.

Find all of the old, fancy, gilded boxes you want out in the middle east, but unless it melts the faces off of some Nazis you won’t convince me that it’s the ark of the covenant.

Yes, religious minded people can accept silly things to support their view of the world. It’s a consequence of a preference for convenience and comfort rather than truth, I suspect. But then, the non-believers accept equally silly “truths” in their longing to discredit a worldview driven by faith and powered by something bigger than themselves.

Isn’t it just as silly when people say things like, “hey I read the The Da Vinci Code, so now I know the truth, and I can stop thinking about such things”? Scientists too, in their sometimes-mad quest for more knowledge can also believe silly things. (Eugenics anyone?) Last time I checked there wasn’t a lot of compelling evidence to sustain string theories and an 11-dimension universe, but people still talk about those ideas, and ideas like them, as if they were uncontested fact.

I value both faith and science, but I think if you wish to point out the foolishness of some religious folks, then it is only fair to also point out the excesses and foolishness of the knowledge-worshiping or narcissistic non-believers.

Yay! Here’s the new post. I’m not much of a plotter, but I did my best. Maybe I should have done it in the form of a Matt-O-Graph, but I’m not feeling very talented today.

By Tony Robinson December 22, 2009 - 12:39 pm

I have just discovered your website. I have found your articles intriguing, but I couldn’t pass up the chance to comment on this one. I realize it is an old article, but I hope you will still see this post.
I am a recovering literalist. I still believe generally in a creator and more specifically in Jesus Christ (just background not proselytizing) but I no longer believe in 7-day creation, a 6000 year old earth, etc.
My wife loves to study ancient cultures and anthropological subjects, as a side-line of course, because music is her first love. This is a fascination she has passed on to my son.
While attending a Christian school a couple of years ago, my son was flabbergasted when the teacher corrected the Macmillan Earth Science book, which stated that some rocks are millions of years old. “But of course we know that the earth is only 6000 years old.”
At recess, my son approached his classmates, “Can you believe she thinks the earth is only 6000 years old?” only to find that to a student each one of them believed as she did.
By the time he got home, he was fit to be tied. What I explained to him, and what I am saying to you, is that different people find solace and hope from different places. Each person is at a different place in their spiritual journey. To insist that they must believe the earth is older, is no better than them insisting on others believing it is not.
You say you have found “the greatest meaning in creativity, generosity, friends, and family” and that is wonderful. It also very closely matches my own experiences. (Continued)

By Tony Robinson December 22, 2009 - 12:44 pm

…However people find meaning, hope, joy from many places. Begrudging them that source before they are ready to move on from it is at best going to put them on the defensive, and at worst potentially crushing. I understand your dedication to rationality and reason. However, bringing someone to it before they are ready is a lot like exporting Democracy by military force. Until the people have the kind of philosophical revelations that our founding fathers did…they just aren’t ready to handle it. And in their hands it will be disastrous.
Sorry so long.

Thanks for the very thoughtful commentary, Tony! I actually would have written something a great deal like it only three short years ago. I very much appreciate the importance of solace to a person’s soul, and would not begrudge it anyone–so we are MOSTLY in agreement, except in some cases I have recently come to see as exceptions.

I do not respect a comforting belief which causes harm to the believer, and actively dispute one which causes harm to others. Your child’s school bus driver is entitled to a belief in Ganesh the elephant god, but he is NOT entitled to believe that because of Ganesh’s protection he doesn’t need to swerve out of the way of the Mack truck heading straight for him and his forty schoolchildren. The man sitting next to me is entitled to believe in Allah, but not that it’s his duty to take over this airplane and fly it into a football stadium. Parents who withhold life-saving medical treatment from their children go to jail, no matter how deeply comforted they are by their belief in the healing power of God. It’s not merely a matter of religious belief; when a loved one finds solace in a whiskey bottle or needle, it’s not only appropriate to protest but our duty. So I do understand your point, and agree that a comforting belief is usually none of my business to contest; but have come to see how some others are in fact our business after all.

Your example of the teacher who taught the earth was 6000 years old, was not merely heartbreaking, but also highly disturbing, because I find the crippling of young minds an unconscionable act. Neil deGrasse Tyson said about this exact type of incident that preventing it is “not about the need to separate church and state; it’s about the need to separate ignorant, scientifically illiterate people from the ranks of teachers.” Texas schoolchildren receive an inferior science education due to precisely this pattern, and in such a populous state it drags down the literacy of the entire nation. Not just due to dragging down national averages, but also due to the fact that the textbook guidelines made by the grossly scientifically-illiterate fundamentalist Texas school board are so financially influential, they determine the content of textbooks available to EVERY other state. It is not merely a matter of what brought that woman solace. Your own son was unnecessarily upset (I consider his coming home “fit to be tied” a dreadful thing for that teacher to have done to him), your own parenting interfered with, and the possibility introduced of being ostracized by his peers for failing to cohere. I have heard many stories of children traumatized by fears of hell which were very real to them, or by taunting for failing to share a common belief. I myself believe it is immoral to cause either physical or intellectual harm to a child (like teaching them false information about the world which hinders them from prospering in it) but because it damages our national competitiveness in the sciences and cripples reasoning ability, which has far-reaching implications in every area of life and political policy since poor judgment leads to poor decisions. Imagine instituting a nationwide curriculum whereby all schoolchildren are taught that disease is caused by invisible fairies: would our medical system be improved or degraded by such a belief? If you think this is a fanciful example, it’s not so far off–anti-vaccination crusaders have caused the resurgence of several once-rare diseases, and are responsible for the deaths of many thousands of children worldwide. All because they are incapable of distinguishing a fact from a comforting belief.

So an adult who, through a process of reflection and reason, comes to believe the earth is only 6000 years old is entitled to it and I won’t begrudge them any more than a person who believes he’s visited nightly by Elvis. But to teach it to an impressionable young mind is exactly the “bringing someone to it before they are ready” that you yourself wisely warn me against. You correctly point out that “to insist that they must believe the earth is older, is no better than them insisting on others believing it is not.” But there are two little issues I have with the statement nonetheless: first, I don’t think I’ve suggested anybody should insist young-earthers should change their mind, but just that they should not have their belief RESPECTED any more than the Elvis guy, and certainly not permitted to teach it to children in accredited schools. (See http://xkcd.com/154/) And second, I really have to point out that even if I were insisting such a thing, it would in fact be better than them insisting on others believing the earth is not older than 6000 years. Not because I’m morally superior, but because the weight of evidence is so clearly, indisputably, laughably, overwhelmingly in favor of the claim I have made. It is better but for the same reason it is better to insist to your child that he cannot jump off a three-story building and fly, than for her to insist that she can. To claim moral equivalency just because they are both beliefs is like saying that elephants and ticks are the same size because they are both animals. It is actually IMMORAL, in my view, to excuse a destructive belief (and the erosion of our educational system and position among civilized nations is dreadfully destructive) just because it brings its adherents solace. So I definitely understand the spirit of your sentiments, and in most cases actually agree with them. But the ones I now choose to make noise about are the cases where harm is being done, and being given a free pass for it because good folks like you and I so highly value tolerance.

You’re quite right, Cliffe, that scientists are capable of believing silly things. Francis Collins, for example, is one of the great scientists of our day, and yet he believes in talking snakes and magical people who rise from the dead. You can believe in the Muppets and still be a scientist, for all I care. But what makes science cool is that if you try to *call those silly beliefs scientific,* you will get shot down faster than a nerd in a nightclub. By whom? By your fellow scientists.

By the way, you might want to reconsider future uses of the “mad quest for knowledge” comment. It’s cute, but it’s frequently thrown around by people who are either trying to shore up an irrational position by undermining confidence in scientists, or have watched “The Fly” too many times. 😉